Hugely Disappointed In 5D III Price

[Tijn]

I'm quite eager to see production models popping up and some thorough comparisons being done between the 5D III and the Nikon D800.

As it looks from here, the 5D mk3 is a great camera that combines increased full-frame ISO performance with very decent AF and better build quality. As such it's a clear upgrade from the 5D mk2 on the areas where improvement was most needed.

However, it's priced higher than expected (at $3500) and higher than the Nikon D800 ($3000) as well. Now these are two different cameras, but as they're major competitors it'll be worthwhile comparing them.

As it looks now, most likely Canon has the edge on high ISO performance and burst speed, while Nikon has the edge on low ISO performance and dynamic range. AF might be similarly decent in both bodies. But then, Nikon has a special edition (D800E) without an in-body AA filter, uncompressed video shooting, a lot higher resolution (downsampling will again reduce noise)...

If this turns out to be correct, then the Canon is more specialised for action photography whereas the Nikon has much better landscape photography potential, while still being able to do action (in good light). It's doubtful that this difference explains the $500 price difference, though.
Another thing to note is that Nikon does also have a body for professional action photography (the D4), but Canon now has no body for specialized landscape photography.

I think Canon pushed the price too high in the context of the D800. Not that it'll matter for me, I won't upgrade for at least a year or two anyhow. At the same time however, it does become interesting to see some functionality on both the Nikon and Canon sides. The Nikon D4 has backlit buttons and a function to automatically select a minimum shutter speed based on the focal length you're working at, during automatic exposure. Adding auto ISO to that could a lot of magic tricks. I'd love to see such functionality in the more affordable bodies, also the Canon ones. Can't be too difficult, but it'd be so nice to work with!

 

[simonxu11]

For all those, who think that the price got higher, here is an interesting article: http://www.eos-network.com/2012/03/cameras-banks-and-the-financial-crisis-or-why-cameras-prices-seem-so-high-these-days/

Confirms my gut feelings. Thankfully someone did the math. Yet, I do not like the "new price" so much myself.

The article uses inflation and exchange rate into the calculation and says Canon is a Japanese company. Nothing wrong with that.
But the D700 was $2999 when it was announced in 2008, D800 is still $2999 today, so inflation, banks and the financial crisis have nothing to do with Nikon or Nikon is not a Japanese company??

 

[Musouka]

Here is the thing.... Nikon might not actually be sacrificing their margins with the $2999 price for D800. The cost of technology usually goes down with time. The cost of producing an FF sensor might be much lower than it was 4 years ago. I'm not saying that this is strictly the case but it's a possibility.

Another point: it's correct that the Yen is high. However, other currencies are cheaper for Japanese companies as a result. So it will actually be cheaper for Canon to buy materials from overseas for their products.

 

[XanuFoto]

Here is the thing.... Nikon might not actually be sacrificing their margins with the $2999 price for D800. The cost of technology usually goes down with time. The cost of producing an FF sensor might be much lower than it was 4 years ago. I'm not saying that this is strictly the case but it's a possibility.

Another point: it's correct that the Yen is high. However, other currencies are cheaper for Japanese companies as a result. So it will actually be cheaper for Canon to buy materials from overseas for their products.

Nikon does not make their own sensors. They buy them from Sony. Canon makes their own and I assume their prices would be lower then what Nikon pays. I don't know whats the reason for the Canons pricing. Maybe they really do not want to sell that many units at a loss.

 

[Cali_PH]

Nikon does not make their own sensors. They buy them from Sony. Canon makes their own and I assume their prices would be lower then what Nikon pays. I don't know whats the reason for the Canons pricing. Maybe they really do not want to sell that many units at a loss.

I was thinking this could be the reason for the $500 cost difference, actually, or at least part of it. Sony may have spent less $ than Canon on R&D for their sensor. Plus I'm guessing they're using it themselves in their own cameras (or a variation of it?) and can recover costs from consumers that way, as well as selling to Nikon. So to me it's possible what they're charging Nikon is less than Canon is trying to recover for both the R&D & manufacturing prices. Just guessing, haven't seen anyone post any numbers.

 

[briansquibb]

Well comparing the 5DII and the 1Ds3 upto iso400 the 1Ds3 is clearly better than the 5D2, not by much - but definitely not way worse (DxO measurements)

Better AF for the 5D3 - well more points and the AF point - 1Ds3 is essentially the same as the 1D4. The 5D3 doesn't have the grip nor the weatherproofing. 1Ds3 has AF for f/8 ....

I would be surrpised if in real life you would see any difference in prints between the 5D2/3 and 1Ds3 using iso of 400 or less. It is all too easy to dismiss old technology when shiny new stuff comes out - and easy to overlook the features lost on the way

Personally I stopped looking at DxO measurements and I firmly believe they're quite biased (usually they tend to give more to Nikon than Canon). Beside this, still looking at DxO, the 5D Mk II seems to perform better than the 1Ds3, especially in dynamic range. For low ISO they're pretty much the same, but then the 5D2 becomes better at high ISO.

I found several tests about the 5D2 sensor being better than the one on the 1Ds3, here's one:
http://www.akelstudio.com/blog/canon-1ds-mark-iii-v-s-5d-mark-ii-is-there-is-any-difference-in-image-quality-in-studio-test-run/

Note I'm talking only about picture quality, not functions, AF and so on which are better on the 1Ds3 of course.

In any case this makes the 5D3 better than the 1Ds3 since it is already better than the 5D2 by about 2 stops.

I just dont see the numbers that support your conclusion - up to iso 400 the 1Ds3 is better than the 5D2 - from the DxO tests.

The native iso on the 1Ds3 is 1600.

I dont see that having 2 stops more improves the IQ as DR starts dropping of at about iso 800, regardless of sensor.

Having both bodies to compare against each other I have found, to me, that the 1Ds3 gives much smoother graduations of skin tones at iso 400 and less than the 5D2. You would expect that as the 1Ds3 was aimed at studio use.

As I said initially, I doubt if there would be obvious differences on prints with the iso up to 400.

 

[WarStreet]

In the last 3 or 4 days, the D800 took the 1st place on amazon.com again, while 5DIII was second. I just checked again now, and the D800 is still no.1, the expensive D4 @ no.3 and 5DIII @ no.4

Considering that Canon has more users than Nikon, and that very few actually switch brands (usually), and that the Nikon cameras were available on Amazon for more days (Although there was a pause in sales for some days), these numbers are not that positive for Canon. Amazon is just one seller, but I think they are big enough to get an idea of what is going on.

If this trend proves to be true, and if it is long term sustained after the cameras are available and tested, might be possible that after the initial big demand diminish compared to their supply, Canon might decrease their price.

Don't get me wrong, I love Canon, and the 5DIII is great and I am going to get it, but we can't consider this camera overall better than the D800. They are nearly on the same level with differences which might prove better for some or others. I shoot sports, and the extra 50% odds to get a better shot with the 6fps is a preference for me, but certainly not better overall, and not worth the extra $500.

Although there are users which are willing to pay more than $3500 for the 5DIII due to personal value, overall this camera can't reach this value and the market (at least Amazon) is showing it. Again, this is good for us for a possible price decrease earlier than thought. Or is just wishful thinking ?

 

[Axilrod]

It's possible that Nikon is pricing the D800 very aggressively in an effort to take Canon's users. You have to look at camera bodies like video game systems, they sell you the body, but we all know you can't do jack with just a body. You have to buy lenses, flashes, batteries, and other accessories. Maybe in Nikon's eyes they're simply giving up $500 initially because they know they'll get thousands more out of it in the future. Just a thought.

 

[unfocused]

Considering that Canon has more users than Nikon, and that very few actually switch brands (usually), and that the Nikon cameras were available on Amazon for more days (Although there was a pause in sales for some days), these numbers are not that positive for Canon. Amazon is just one seller, but I think they are big enough to get an idea of what is going on.

I would be careful about drawing overly broad conclusions, especially given this early in the sales cycle. The 5DIII was at the top of the list for several days during the initial rush for pre-orders. During some of that same time the Nikon D800 wasn't even available for orders on Amazon, so at that time, it looked to some as though the 5D was doing far better than the D800.

Now, the rush for the 5D has died down a bit and the Nikon is again available for order, so the pent-up demand is a bit reversed. Absent some solid and specific numbers, about the only conclusion that can legitimately be drawn is that both cameras seem to be selling quite well. Once the initial demand is satisfied, if one were to monitor the rankings over six months or so, it might give a bit more accurate picture of the relative popularity of each model. But, at this stage of the game, it's really a case of garbage-in garbage-out as far as this data is concerned.

 

[gabriele]

I just dont see the numbers that support your conclusion - up to iso 400 the 1Ds3 is better than the 5D2 - from the DxO tests.

The native iso on the 1Ds3 is 1600.

I dont see that having 2 stops more improves the IQ as DR starts dropping of at about iso 800, regardless of sensor.

Having both bodies to compare against each other I have found, to me, that the 1Ds3 gives much smoother graduations of skin tones at iso 400 and less than the 5D2. You would expect that as the 1Ds3 was aimed at studio use.

As I said initially, I doubt if there would be obvious differences on prints with the iso up to 400.

Well looking on the graphs on DxO you see the dots are perfectly aligned between 1Ds3 and 5D2 on ISO tests, but then the 5D2 gains quite a good margin after 400ISO, which is something to notice.
You have also to consider different custom styles between cameras with different settings (as it is also noted in my previous post with the link the 1Ds3 tends to oversaturate the reds).
As I was saying before since there's apparently no difference in ISO performance below 400ISO between 5D2 and 1Ds3, the new one is going to be better especially at high ISO.
If you can shot at 1600 ISO with the same quality of 640 and you need it, wouldn't you say it's a better sensor (and also with slightly better resolution)?

 

[Stvx]

3500 USD is cheap.

In Norway it is on pre-order everywhere at 4900 USD !!! Insane...

Even if you add 25% VAT on the US price, the Norwegian price is still 525 USD more expensive.
Shame on you, Canon Norway and/ or retailers.

 

[briansquibb]

I just dont see the numbers that support your conclusion - up to iso 400 the 1Ds3 is better than the 5D2 - from the DxO tests.

The native iso on the 1Ds3 is 1600.

I dont see that having 2 stops more improves the IQ as DR starts dropping of at about iso 800, regardless of sensor.

Having both bodies to compare against each other I have found, to me, that the 1Ds3 gives much smoother graduations of skin tones at iso 400 and less than the 5D2. You would expect that as the 1Ds3 was aimed at studio use.

As I said initially, I doubt if there would be obvious differences on prints with the iso up to 400.

Well looking on the graphs on DxO you see the dots are perfectly aligned between 1Ds3 and 5D2 on ISO tests, but then the 5D2 gains quite a good margin after 400ISO, which is something to notice.
You have also to consider different custom styles between cameras with different settings (as it is also noted in my previous post with the link the 1Ds3 tends to oversaturate the reds).
As I was saying before since there's apparently no difference in ISO performance below 400ISO between 5D2 and 1Ds3, the new one is going to be better especially at high ISO.
If you can shot at 1600 ISO with the same quality of 640 and you need it, wouldn't you say it's a better sensor (and also with slightly better resolution)?

I dont know what figures you are reading the DxO site but when I do the comparison up to iso 400 then the 1Ds3 is ahead of the 5D2

Canon EOS 5D Mark II
Overall Score 79
Portrait (Color Depth) 23.7 bits
Landscape (Dynamic Range) 11.9 Evs

Canon EOS 1Ds Mark III
Overall Score 80
Portrait (Color Depth) 24 bits
Landscape (Dynamic Range)12 Evs

The area which 5D2 is ahead is the high iso. I am not concerned about taking pictures of 1600 and above - 2 stops better only relates to noise - there is no DR benefit.

I am not concerned about this - I have both the 1Ds3 and the 5D2 and I know from experience which is best for me - the 1Ds3.

 

[gabriele]

Look at the graphs not just the final numbers.
11.9 vs 12 is no big deal.

By the way you're missing the point: I'm saying the 5D3 will be better than the 1Ds3 and at a lower price, don't you agree with this?

 

[XanuFoto]

It's possible that Nikon is pricing the D800 very aggressively in an effort to take Canon's users. You have to look at camera bodies like video game systems, they sell you the body, but we all know you can't do jack with just a body. You have to buy lenses, flashes, batteries, and other accessories. Maybe in Nikon's eyes they're simply giving up $500 initially because they know they'll get thousands more out of it in the future. Just a thought.

Pros who run a business do not operate that way. i.e. spend 1000's on changing systems to save 500 dollars. That would be "Penny wise, pound foolish".

 

[briansquibb]

Look at the graphs not just the final numbers.
11.9 vs 12 is no big deal.

By the way you're missing the point: I'm saying the 5D3 will be better than the 1Ds3 and at a lower price, don't you agree with this?

Lower price - no, because the 1Ds3 is only available used now and is not much more in the UK than the new 5D2. The indications so far is that at low ISO the 5d3 is not better than the 1Ds3.

If you need high ISO then clearly the 5D3 will be better - unless you also need AF at f/8 (as I do)

Bottom line is that all 3 bodies are very good - perhaps when the 5D3 is delivered and tested we might get a better idea of the 5D3's performance - I very much doubt that your assertion that it is 'way ahead of the more pricey 1Ds3' will prove true

 

[gabriele]

Look at the graphs not just the final numbers.
11.9 vs 12 is no big deal.

By the way you're missing the point: I'm saying the 5D3 will be better than the 1Ds3 and at a lower price, don't you agree with this?

Lower price - no, because the 1Ds3 is only available used now and is not much more in the UK than the new 5D2. The indications so far is that at low ISO the 5d3 is not better than the 1Ds3.

If you need high ISO then clearly the 5D3 will be better - unless you also need AF at f/8 (as I do)

Bottom line is that all 3 bodies are very good - perhaps when the 5D3 is delivered and tested we might get a better idea of the 5D3's performance - I very much doubt that your assertion that it is 'way ahead of the more pricey 1Ds3' will prove true

You have to be fair and compare the price of a new body to the price of a new body, when the 1Ds3 came out was way more expensive than the actual price of the 5d3, which I suspect, will be lowered to 3200.
The f/8 thing is not final yet, beside you will only need it using lenses less bright than f/4 used with a 2xTC, 5D3 looks better than the 1Ds3 under so many aspects:
Focusing system
ISO performance for sure and probably dyanamic range
Burst mode
Video mode and connections
HDR
Ev bracketing
Flash control
Screen (probably irrelevant matter though).

So if you just put a battery grip on a 5D3 you'll get an overall better camera than a 1Ds3 at a better price.

 

[meli]

blablablabla, the only thing i know atm is that the XPro1 might produce images better than the 5DMarkus the 3rd.
even have a better focus( this kidding Canon whores), well D800 wasn't really what a wanted but hey i don't to pay the £2399 on a 24-70mm so i think ill pass this time for Canon, thanks for the 550d btw. PS: say f/8 bye bye.

back to your cave troll (get a 5dmk3, that 102.800 iso might be handy in there)

 

[EchoLocation]

It's possible that Nikon is pricing the D800 very aggressively in an effort to take Canon's users. You have to look at camera bodies like video game systems, they sell you the body, but we all know you can't do jack with just a body. You have to buy lenses, flashes, batteries, and other accessories. Maybe in Nikon's eyes they're simply giving up $500 initially because they know they'll get thousands more out of it in the future. Just a thought.

This. If the 5DIII was the same price as the 5DII, I would have bought the 24-70 II and the 5DIII in the next 9 months.
However, after sticker shock with the 24-70, the sticker shock of the 5DIII was really just disconcerting for me. I am not spending over 5k on camera gear anytime soon.
I will probably wait for a few months and see about the possibilities of a 2k-2500 dollar FF camera being released by either company, or simply buy a D700 and the Nikon 24-70 in the summer.
If Canon wants to put premium pricing on their lenses i'd expect very competitive pricing for their cameras.
What I don't understand is how they can go from being priced below Nikon across the board to being priced above Nikon across the board in one wave of product releases.

 

[briansquibb]

You have to be fair and compare the price of a new body to the price of a new body, when the 1Ds3 came out was way more expensive than the actual price of the 5d3, which I suspect, will be lowered to 3200.
The f/8 thing is not final yet, beside you will only need it using lenses less bright than f/4 used with a 2xTC, 5D3 looks better than the 1Ds3 under so many aspects:
Focusing system
ISO performance for sure and probably dyanamic range
Burst mode
Video mode and connections
HDR
Ev bracketing
Flash control
Screen (probably irrelevant matter though).

So if you just put a battery grip on a 5D3 you'll get an overall better camera than a 1Ds3 at a better price.

You have it your way - I am sticking to my 5D2 priced series 1.

F/8 is the real bonus to me - yes I do use the 2x on a F/4 lens or is it a 1.4 x on a 5.6? That was a dealmaker for me

All the other things you mention are not relevant to me - as I said I use this at iso400 or less for studio type work. I dont do video either.

I feel you have no experience of a 1Ds3 and certainly none of a 5D3 so your 'way better than a 1Ds3' is not based on fact or experience just hearsay and a spec sheet.

 

[Seamus]

I pre-ordered on the 2nd and I have no regrets. Sure it would be better if was cheaper, but (for me) I think it is worth it. Love reading all the post, lots of differing opinions and ideas. Keep it up, the 22nd is getting closer! ;D